Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
  #1
SMC Super Tak 55 VS Fuji XF 56
Lens: %% f1.8 and 56F1.2 Camera: K7 and XE2 
Posted By: eddie1960, 11-15-2014, 01:48 PM

So for todays Single in I did some comparisons.
I decided to compare the SMC Supert Tak 55 on the K7, to the XF56 on the XE2. To give the tak every advantage I corrected WB and CA (the Fuji is more accurate on WB and has lens correction built in to the raw) While it's not as good I think it's damn lose for a lens close to 50 years older the album they are in on flickr has both lenses @ 2.0,2.8,4.0,5.6,8.0 all with the same static subject though you will need to look at the tags to see which is which until I label them all


Tak



Fuji


Views: 2,070
11-15-2014, 03:40 PM   #2
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
It seems to me that the exposures are different enough to render the test result at least debatable?
The second image looks brighter...
Pictures have no EXIF data. If you used the same parameters, it could be a difference in light (in the first one you seem to have a shadow on the forehead of the skull), ISO (it is my understanding that ISO settings are not exactly the same on every camera, and the same standard value (es. "ISO800") actually can mean a slightly different value, approximated to the displayed one), transmittance (t-stops) etc.
It's a fascinating thing to compare lenses!
11-15-2014, 04:04 PM   #3
PEG Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 57,760
I saw these images and this sprang to mind... "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest".

I think the older Tak is more than holding its own here.
11-15-2014, 05:51 PM   #4
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 46
I love the choice of subject. I like the colour in the second photo best

11-15-2014, 06:37 PM   #5
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
It seems to me that the exposures are different enough to render the test result at least debatable?
The second image looks brighter...
Pictures have no EXIF data. If you used the same parameters, it could be a difference in light (in the first one you seem to have a shadow on the forehead of thi ise skull), ISO (it is my understanding that ISO settings are not exactly the same on every camera, and the same standard value (es. "ISO800") actually can mean a slightly different value, approximated to the displayed one), transmittance (t-stopsim sure is different on each lens ) etc.
It's a fascinating thing to compare lenses!
Exposure on both was the same set manually ISO 200. 1/500th sec f 2.8 in this case
In fact the Fuji is noted for its ISO being one stop lower so it should actually being 1 stop slower than it reads (in high ISO tests it's been performing better on noise until the competitor camera is brought down one stop so perhaps that is. It here

I'm not dxo (and they don't test fuji because the sensor is so different) I will reshoot using just the fuji body tomorrow and see how that works will post here
The t stop
11-15-2014, 07:49 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
Too many variables! Get an adapter for the Fuji and shoot them both there.

FYI, I would expect all the M42 Takumars of 28mm and longer to do well. They are great lenses. However, the Fuji 56 is going to win at f/1.2 hands down.
11-16-2014, 06:33 AM   #7
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by carpents Quote
Too many variables! Get an adapter for the Fuji and shoot them both there.

FYI, I would expect all the M42 Takumars of 28mm and longer to do well. They are great lenses. However, the Fuji 56 is going to win at f/1.2 hands down.
That is gonna be unfair towards the Takumar, I'm afraid...
Adapters give rise to other problems, and whether they are not so evident in real-life use, they tend to be noticed when pixel-peeping for comparison purposes...

11-16-2014, 09:58 AM   #8
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
Original Poster
I justo sets a more controlled and less distracting subject In th Flickr album both lenses shot on xe2 at isp200 using pro neg standard (ie least punchy colour) SOOC JPEG2000 WB set for each lens separately ( taking care of the yellowing) auto shutter to cover t stop difference at f2.0on a tripod
MF both lenses using peaking on the same area
To my eye the Fuji wins but not by a lot
Real world I like both but can almost certainly guarantee once he month is out the tak will get put away for some time
Good lenses with good af and speed all things being equal win
I will do the same thing with the 35versus the Fuji (the da I can only compare via the k7 since I'm not buying a more expensive
K adaptor for 2 lenses that weren't stolen
11-16-2014, 10:05 AM   #9
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
*snip*
Good lenses with good af and speed all things being equal win
*snip*
I hear you...
Yesterday I did some MF at f/2 on some dancers... wish I had nice primes with AF!
11-16-2014, 11:34 AM   #10
Pentaxian
Jean Poitiers's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lost in translation ...
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 18,076
Thanks Eddie ... that's an interesting comparison. J
11-16-2014, 01:41 PM   #11
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
Interesting. Other than differences in exposure, I can't tell a whole lot of difference. But Tak is pretty good considering its age.
11-17-2014, 08:41 AM   #12
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
Original Poster
here is the more controlled setting
both lenses had w.b. set for them ISO 200 on the xe2,both used peaking to focus on the same area (some adjustment in tripod distance to compensate for the adaptor length changing the fov a little)

55




56


11-17-2014, 11:21 AM   #13
Veteran Member
LensBeginner's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,696
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
here is the more controlled setting
both lenses had w.b. set for them ISO 200 on the xe2,both used peaking to focus on the same area (some adjustment in tripod distance to compensate for the adaptor length changing the fov a little)

55




56


Second one looks a little sharper, but difference is minimal.
First one is a lot colder, though...
You said you did set the WB, how? daylight at 5500K for both?
11-17-2014, 11:33 AM   #14
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by LensBeginner Quote
Second one looks a little sharper, but difference is minimal.
First one is a lot colder, though...
You said you did set the WB, how? daylight at 5500K for both?
Custom WB put them on the camera and used the auto custom set (there was a change in the light in the itnerim may be the cause. the only perfect setting would require studio lights, which I do not have-

My observation is the contrast (and micro contrast) is a little better and definitely it is sharper (though at f 2 it is stopped down 1.5 stops from wide open where the tak is only stopped down 1/3 stop. At 4-5.6 it gets more difficult.
the newer lens has much better flare control as well. the truer test would I guess be verus the DA*55 which is a similar age to the Fuji and benefits from new tech as well. If I had one (and the right adaptor) I could do that buit if I bu another lens for my pentax kist it won't be duplicating this FL It's mor likely to be longer zooms which just aren't ergonomic on the fuji setup (trying to convice my wife to grab a K50 with a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a da 50 that she could use with the 14 and 35 I still have - she wants something more like the RX100mkiii I believe
11-17-2014, 11:37 AM   #15
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Mr Bassie Quote
The takumar puts in a respectable showing. Thanks for the test.

more than respectable. kind of makes the money the XF cost seem ridiculous (until I Look at the DA855 cost as well - that puts it in perspective)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
55 tak vs xf56, camera, eddie, flickr, fuji, fuji vs pentax, lens, photo, smc, smith, tak
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Tak 35 mm F3.5, SMC Tak 55 mm F1.8, and Helios 44K-4 58 mm F2 lenses Vantage-Point Sold Items 6 04-15-2014 03:03 PM
200mm Super Tak vs SMC Tak cali92rs Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 11-20-2012 06:39 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMC Tak 150mm/4, SMC Tak 135mm/3.5, Super Tak 55mm/2 and extras pdxbmw Sold Items 8 09-10-2009 10:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:17 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top